Debate debacle
Was Maria Parra-Sandoval, a questioner in the last Democratic debate, really dying to know if Clinton preferred diamonds to pearls? Apparently not. She revealed on her MySpace page that CNN pre-planned and censored each debate question. Now bloggers are jumping on CNN for failing to better identify questioners and for slanting its post-debate coverage.
Catherine Jackson asked a question about Iran and mentioned that her son has spent three tours in Iraq. Dan Riehl identifies Jackson as an anti-war activist and former Harry Reid supporter. He says LaShannon Spencer, identified only as a member of the First African Methodist Church, is actually the former political director of the Democratic party of Arkansas. He also speculates as to why the crowd was so Clinton-friendly.
Classical Values found that Khalid Khan, a citizen concerned about racial profiling, is really a prominent Muslim leader previously featured on CNN. Classical Values says, “I have no problem with the president of any organization asking questions at a presidential debate. But shouldn’t who he is be disclosed?”
The New York Times notes that CNN didn’t identify another Clinton supporter: James Carville, who is a close Clinton friend and contributor, as well as one of CNN’s post-debate analysts.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top37 Comments to “Debate debacle”
We can expect “more of the same” in the future . . .
Report comment to moderator
What do you expect from the Clinton News Network? The sycophants handling Clinton are doing their best to insulate her from tough questions. That’s why they avoid Fox News and plant supporters in the audience to ask softball questions. It’s like being sold a product without being allowed to see the label or expiration date.
Report comment to moderator
The whole thing gave my gag reflex a good work-out.
I thought the funniest moment was when Obama compared Hillary to Mitt and Rudy, while staring right in her face.
I swear you could see her eyes bug out even from the side.
Biden was the best by far.
Chris Dodd was almost as not terrible as Biden
Report comment to moderator
One would think if Mrs. Clinton is as capable as she would have us believe, she wouldn’t be afraid of FOX. Nota lot of honesty on the part of the Dems or CNN if they have to plant the questions.
Report comment to moderator
Please — tell me you actually believe these hour long infommercials are honest politcal debates. Political debates in America whether they be primary or campaign have long since degenerated into a farce. They resemble debate the same way reality TV resemble reality.
The canidates don’t even talk to each other. Its been reduced to a multi canidate Q&A
Report comment to moderator
Whatever you want to call them, HRW, it’s obvious that Hillary gets preferential treatment in the debates.
Report comment to moderator
A staged, planned, pre-picked questioning, propaganda show?
Well, yep.
And as Bob Dole used to say “Where’s the outrage?”
I think if we could let candidates put forward questions, (answer them themselves)and then have other candidates answer them.. that might restore some confidence among voters/viewers.
We should all feel insulted that CNN plants such lopsided unrepresentative audience debate questioners. Better to have Tim Russert and other newsmen be the sole interrogators.
Report comment to moderator
test
Report comment to moderator
Yawn. are we still beating up all the democrats or just the women?
Report comment to moderator
The worst part about the debate was that CNN potrayed all the questioners as average joe undecideds. That said, I am grateful to CNN for having the girl ask the dumb question rather than her original one about Yuccca Mountain nuclear facility. They had already spent way to much time talking about it…
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner –
Watch a Canadian debate some time and exactly what you suggests happens. At least half the debate is left open for the canidates to fight amongst themselves.
Watching the 2004 presidential debate was worse than watching any contrived reality show. Prior to the debates, everything from lights, mic placements, type of close ups, questions etc had all been decided.
Report comment to moderator
It really is getting ridiculous.
There needs to be an overhaul of the debate process.
I can’t wait for the stupid youtube debate for the Republicans.
It’s not bad enough that we have the Huckster trying to be everybody’s nanny, with Ron Paul standing by, ranting like a drunk uncle at a funeral, but now we have to hear questions posed by cyber-nuts and animated cartoon characters!
Where’s the dignity?
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I once read that in the ‘60 Great Debate JFK goons went in the studio and cranked up the heat to make Nixon sweat. Its no wonder that candidates want to control the debate environmt.
If any of you reading this were debate moderators what questions would you be asking? And what answer(s) would you be hoping to hear??
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner post 13,
and your refernces for the Kennedy team turning up the heat so Nixon would sweat at the Kennedy-Nixon debate?
Also, I am confused, wouldn’t the heat have affected Kennedy as well?
Report comment to moderator
The Kennedys having been facing heat for generations now, but the heat doesn’t seem to affect them (or the Clintons) as much as it does their opponents.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, conservatives are so sensitive whereas the Democrats are preparing themselves for eternal heat.
The moderator should allow the canidates to discuss/debate back and forth interrupting only to allow for a modicum of decorum. But most canidates don’t like this as it deviates from the script.
Report comment to moderator
I am finding this amusing.
We are condeming the political debates for contentlessness.
But look at the postings in this blog.
How many:
1) are focused on personalities not ideas?
2) posts are unssupported by the facts?
3) posts do not follow logically from their premises?
4) of the posters admit to their premises?
In short, before we complain about the debates, might we want to perhaps focus on our own behaviors in this blog?
Is there any one who does not believe that the discussions on this blog could be raised to a higher intellectual level?
Is there anyone on this blog who does not believe we could not probe the topics at hand in more depth?
I am reminded of the beam in one’s own eye problem (Matthew 7:3).
When we as the WOW blogging community can raise this blog to the level where it is a clear example for all to see and particpate in, then perhaps we have grounds for complaint.
Lynn has done her level best to help us here. I suggest that now the remainder of the climb is up to us.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I can’t vouch for the facts of Sawgunner’s statement, but he probably was referring to Nixon’s problem of sweat appearing on his forehead and nose when he got uncomfortable.
I haven’t watched any of the debates. I don’t have time, and I fugure Rush will tell me what happened. I will probably start watching when it’s Republican & Democrat. I want a real debate, where the face off with each other.
Report comment to moderator
Every post/opinion does not need a dozen sources to back it up.
That said, I agree that the new blog format (with registration required) has raised the level of debate decorum.
Too bad the same cannot be said for last week’s Democrat debate.
Report comment to moderator
Having raised kids, I know that sometimes a surface question reveals a question laying below the surface. The question, “Do you prefer diamonds to pearls?” may hint at an unspoken question, “Do you know the difference?”
Two things are revealing about the question.
1. The category “things of value” lists two items associated with the wealthy: diamonds and pearls.
2. The question probes the candidate’s ability to assess the relative value of things in this world.
Why not treat the question as a serious attempt to size up the candidate? Unlike straightforward questions, “joke” questions can reveal more about what a person really thinks because the question can’t be anticipated in advance, answers can’t be formulated ahead of time, and scripted answers given.
Leaders have to make judgments everyday, and the good leaders are capable of making value judgments, having a good idea about the relative value of things as compared to other things.
National security is important, but so is civil liberty. Both have great value. But sometimes the first can harm the second. We need to know if our potential leaders can make value judgments and why the would choose one over the other.
The question may seem farcical, but the underlying question is serious.
Report comment to moderator
I personally would like to see a candidate — any candidate — answer a yes or no question with yes or no and why. None of them do that.
(Actually, what I would really like to see is for all the candidates have their feet put to the fire the way they do in Parliament once a week for the Prime Minister in Britain. He’s forced to answer questions.)
Nixon had been advised to wear makeup because of five o’clock shadow and he refused. People who heard the debate over the radio thought he won, those who saw it on tv felt Kennedy did.
Report comment to moderator
Actually the British parliamentary system calls for a daily question period in which the opposition can ask questions of the cabinet including the PM. The equilivant would be for the president to appear to Congress to answer questions — I can’t see Bush or many of the candidates surviving the first day.
Report comment to moderator
Too bad there really isn’t anyone to vote for on either side…
Report comment to moderator
Oh give us a break, HRW. Bush is grilled by the MSM (”the opposition”) nearly every day, and he holds up just fine!
Report comment to moderator
You mean I missed those daily press conferences all these years. Please give me a link to the archived Q & A so I can revel in Bush’s glorious defence of his policies. Given the complacency of the US media, I imagine Bush was brillant. Perhaps after being well-practised in America, he can face a really critical media in the UK, Canada or the EU.
In a nation where partisanship is considered a bad thing, I hardly think any president has had to face the scrutiny which a British style PM has to face on a daily basis.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I love the Q&A time in Canada and Britain. Unfortunately, our CSPAN rarely covers Canada. But I do like the fact that the Prime Minister has to stand up and defend his/her government’s policy. It puts America to shame.
I have also seen the debates in Canada, and those are true debates. What we have in America is a joke. I have to force myself to watch them just so I know what is going on, not because I like them.
*****
As for Musing’s comments in #17, I take them to heart. I am striving to do better myself. I try to address the issue/article/story at hand and stay away from personalities. And I agree, Lynn has moved things to a higher plane on here.
Report comment to moderator
“Complacency of the U.S. media,” HRW? It’s obvious you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about!!
Report comment to moderator
#17
Casting pearls before oysters. Nice try though.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
The EU and Canadian media is highly critical of the US administration and for Bush to face these critics would be a true test of his Q&A abilities. Bush’s counterparts in the western world faced far more criticism than would be tolerated in a land where bi-partisanship is a virtue.
The US media has failed in its role as an independent source of information. Far from being critical, they have been used by the adminstration to “leak” secrets which are useful to the administration. The entire Plame affair was more an indictment of the media than the administration. The very fact that polls show many Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11 and he had WMDs demonstrate a complete failure of the media to present information which deviates from the administration narrative.
In the last presidential election I forced myself to watch the debate and kept waiting for the two men to actually debate but it never happened. They simply answered questions and took turns.
Report comment to moderator
You’re so far behind the times it’s hardly worth responding to you, HRW. The “Plame affair” was how many years ago, and has been proven to be irrelevant? I’m not sure what poll you’re reading that says we believe Saddam was behind 9/11, but that’s dubious too. And the fact is Saddam DID in fact have WMD, according to the United Nations and leading Democrats such as Hillary Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 30,
so:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.html
which is from the summer of 2007, suggests that 41% of Americans still appear to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning of 9/11.
I believe that HRW’s point here is supported by the evidence.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 30,
so I was thinking over your comment:
” And the fact is Saddam DID in fact have WMD, according to the United Nations and leading Democrats such as Hillary Clinton.”
So are you saying that because a number of people said Iraq had WMD that in fact Iraq did have WMD?
The objectvie evidence seems pretty clear that at the time of the invasion Iraq did not have WMD, so it sounds like you are saying that the words from these individuals are more important that the actual facts.
Report comment to moderator
The evidence members of Congress were privileged to before the invasion proved that Iraq had WMD. By the time our troops overthrown Saddam’s murderous regime, however, those weapons had been moved — probably into Iran.
Report comment to moderator
sorry, “By the time our troops HAD overthrown . . “
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 33,
a fascinating concept.
Do you have evidence to support this position?
Report comment to moderator
Just recently CBS’s 60 minutes ran a report on Omar Khadr, a Canadian, and used video tape which the courts had decided that it was could not be used for evidence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3516048.shtml
Around the four minute mark, a video clip showing Omar to be playing with wires was said to be him creating a bomb. How the video arrived in CBS hands was not detailed. Is CBS being used to bolster the gov’t’s case against him??
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 33,
now perhaps I am confused, but when I did a web search I believe I found the following which suggest that there were no WMD in Iraq at the tinme of the invasion:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
So I have done a fair amount of searching for information to support your model that:
1) there were WMD in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion
2) they were transported to Iran
without luck.
Can you provide links to your material?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!